Corn subsidies are largely used for high-fructose corn syrup. As we know, subsidies decrease prices and increase quantity demanded. Thus we get increased consumption of (basically) sugar which leads to obesity, diabetes, and a strain on our healthcare system. If we’re trying to cut spending and insurance costs (which we claim we are), wouldn’t this be an obvious place to look?

Later in the segment, he makes the comment:

“Obamacare wasn’t designed to fix the healthcare system. Obamacare was designed to pass … If you need 30 million new people to go into the system to make the insurance companies able to afford this and make enough profits to cover these mandates you don’t have a $95 penalty for the individuals. We were hoping that a large percentage of the 30 million people would be young and healthy, and we gave them a choice of $95 for a year or spending $2,000-$4,000 with a large deductible, and they’re all choosing ‘I’ll pay the $95 penalty.'” – Dr. Keith Kantor

I think this goes back to what Senator Barrasso (R-WY) said about their final goal being a single-payer system. They passed what they could knowing it would work like a tax and entitlement–increasing the insurance costs for most to lower costs for others (e.g., forcing all to pay for maternity care and pediatrics so those who need it don’t have to pay as much) as well as literal taxes (16 new taxes) and subsidies (essentially an entitlement). Eventually, I think this has a legitimate chance to become a full-fledged tax and entitlement wherein taxes will go up and the government will pay for all insurance if not a very large portion.

HUGE congratulation to my dad, Keith Kantor, for his successful appearance on Hannity!

What do you think? Are we crazy to continue these corn subsidies? the House of Representatives recently split its funding out from Food Stamps, making both more vulnerable to cuts. Should either or both be cut? What about the second point? Is the current (to increase) penalty so small it was “designed to fail.”